DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
	WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100	

		CRS
Docket No: 8525-05
27 February 2007

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code section 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2007. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

The Board found that you reenlisted in the Navy on 11 April 2002 after 13 years of prior active service. You then served for about two years without incident.

The record reflects that on 1 February 2005, charges of molesting your four year old daughter were substantiated by a Navy case review committee (CRC). The CRC also substantiated allegations that you allowed your daughter and older son to witness you and your girlfriend engaging in sex acts. Subsequently, on 10 August 2005 you were honorably discharged by reason of expiration of term of service. At that time, you were assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4.

Applicable regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is separated at the expiration of enlistment, and is routinely assigned if a service member is involved in child sexual abuse. In this regard, the Board concluded that based on the evidence in the record, the CRC properly substantiated the allegations of abuse. Since you have been treated no differently than others in your situation, the
Board could not find an error or injustice in the assignment of your reenlistment code. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

Sincerely,

							W. DEAN PFIEFFER
							Executive Director